• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Democrats 2020

PH, those are all qualities that you find appealing in a candidate, but I didn't see much effort put into citing his weaknesses (such as less appeal to African/Native/Hispanic voters, who would be needed to get out the vote. Whoever takes the job will need to be energetic, healthy, and well-connected with a network of technical experts in government to repopulate a devastated bureaucracy. I just don't see Sanders in that role. He is more suited for popularizing issues than running a government.
I love it when neoliberals put this argument out.

What's your point? That party loyalists who are "anyone but Trump", and bitch every election that too many progressives vote third party and cost Democrats elections will suddenly become hypocrits and abandon the party? Not a chance. The people we're talking about are breathing party voting robots who don't think for themselves. They do as they're told and they will do just that once again if Sanders is the nominee.
 
The Democratic party is intrinsically resistant to what Sanders represents, but they aren't so stupid as to ignore popular support for those ideas (such as Medicare for all, free college tuition, higher minimum wage, the green New Deal, 70% marginal tax rate... most of which enjoy wide support among both Democratic voters and the general population and were outside of the party mainstream until fairly recently).
 
Fresh meat.

Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, jumps into 2020 race - CNNPolitics

Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old openly gay mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who served in the Navy during the war in Afghanistan, announced on Wednesday that he is launching an exploratory committee for a 2020 presidential bid.

Rhodes scholar too.
Magna cum laude from Harvard, naval intelligence officer (deployed to landlocked Afghanistan, go figure) and not a lawyer. A lot to like in this guy's background.


He has a fun name, I'm voting for him.

Wait, he is gay and his name is Buttigieg? Unfortunate. Maybe he should have went with Pete Montgomery.

That said, he is a mayor of a middling sized city. He is also only 37. Running for governor in 2020 and biding his time would have been a better strategy.
 
AOC is only 29. She isn't old enough to run for president or vice president. Minimum age is 35.
I know. What I wrote would take more than 6 years easily, so that is not a problem.
Unless you are pining for her to join the 2020 race, like some are doing.
It’s ridiculous that it’s unconstitutional for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run for president

- - - Updated - - -

Looks are subjective. Her crazy eyes mar her looks imho.
Honorable? ROFL!

It wasn't I who first brought up her looks in this thread. It was Toni.
 
Here's my take on Bernie: he's the only candidate in the race (even though he hasn't declared himself as running yet) who presents a threat to the Democratic party establishment, as evidenced by their attitude and behavior towards him and his supporters. This is entirely a good thing that needs to happen, and the sooner it does, the better.

He is the only candidate who does not get huge donations from big banks and corporations, which means they would rather have someone else as president. We need to interpret this as the fucking fluorescent blinking neon sign of a point in his favor that it clearly is.

He is the only candidate who is not in favor of endless war overseas. Most Democrats are against wars that Republicans wage, or are against wars that hurt "American interests" on those grounds alone, and will not hesitate to endorse the philosophy of a paternal United States doling out its democracy to the world via smiling drones and perpetual troop presence.

He energized a movement that has put Medicare for all on everybody's lips; we're on the cusp of that being a litmus test for a candidate (as it should be), when just two years ago Hillary announced to roaring applause that it would "never, ever happen". As the other candidates begin to fall in line with weasely pronouncements about "affordable access to health insurance for all", Bernie is still clearly and resolutely campaigning on health care for everyone. Free university education means free university education when he says it, not free for the first two years as long as it's a community college (and nothing to prevent them from simply doubling the price of the next couple of years to make up for the difference). He has helped make a $15 minimum wage a national topic of conversation, which contributed to pressuring Amazon to initiate it as a policy.

Bernie is a social democrat, like AOC, not a socialist, but he calls himself a democratic socialist anyway. This bothers me slightly, but in any case Bernie is the closest thing to an actual socialist by a huge margin. Everyone seems to think that the socialist label is enough to sink him, but year after year, it's becoming more and more palatable to voters--especially Democrats, who favor socialism and capitalism about equally. Just one presidential term ago, this would have been unfathomable. Today, Bernie is the most popular politician in the country as an avowed socialist, and AOC is probably not far behind. The party is shifting to the left, whether the establishment likes it or not.

He is the only candidate who doesn't have to be given some kind of a pass to explain his behavior before he ran for President. Kamala Harris has her gross authoritarian actions as district attorney and "top cop". Beto O'Rourke votes to the right of every candidate in the running and couldn't beat a blobfish with no conscience. Tulsi Gabbard made unfortunate comments about gay marriage, abortion, and Islam that garnered her the support of Steve Bannon, who wanted Trump to install her as secretary of state. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican until not too long ago, and is committed above all else to keeping market capitalism running smoothly. Joe Biden will be instantly torpedoed into irrelevance when (not if) somebody #metoo's him. The first thing Karen Gillibrand did before announcing her candidacy was to have a round-table with Wall Street executives to fund her campaign.

Bernie has decades of advocacy for civil rights and economic justice that he has rarely, if ever, wavered from. On every topic that is becoming a hot-button issue in the current political climate, you can probably find Bernie supporting the progressive viewpoint years before anybody else was talking about it. Same-sex marriage is a good example of this.

He is not a perfect candidate, but he is the only candidate that isn't an empty suit, an authoritarian, a warmonger, a slave to Wall Street, a center-right pragmatist, or a no-name. It sucks that this is true, but that doesn't make it not true.

Too bad he isn't a Democrat--or 20 years younger. And wasn't so soft on the gun lobby.
 
I know. What I wrote would take more than 6 years easily, so that is not a problem.
Unless you are pining for her to join the 2020 race, like some are doing.
It’s ridiculous that it’s unconstitutional for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run for president

- - - Updated - - -

Honorable? ROFL!

It wasn't I who first brought up her looks in this thread. It was Toni.

I said that her youthful good looks are a large part of her appeal (to the masses and certainly to the media.) You're the one who seems to think her eyes look crazy. Sorry they're not blue; they are, however, capable of meeting another person's gaze without looking away in shame but instead convey warmth, intelligencek wit and humor.

BTW, Beto's appeal is largely his looks and his personality.
 
Yabut that's only six years ahead. And it took almost thirty years of mud-slinging to get enough to stick to HRC to keep her out of the White House.
Hillary played herself.
Trumpublicans are panicked because she doesn't couch the truth about their corruption in polite terms, so they are getting to work on her now, and with great fervor. With luck and some help from Uncle Vlad, they might be able to tar her sufficiently in six years.
Why do you think "Uncle Vlad" would be against a more prominent role and perhaps even presidency for AOC? It seems he wants to sow chaos in US government, and a card-carrying socialist in the White House would work for that purpose even better than Trump.

At least they can make an issue of her "crazy eyes", right, Derec?
Again, it wasn't me who brought up AOC's looks.
And besides, she does have crazy eyes. Don't shoot the messenger.

What real Trumpistani man isn't more attracted to lovely Donald's baby blues and soft blonde locks,
:sick-green:

than to the ugly brown lesbian and her crazy eyes?
She is not exactly "ugly", but not good looking either (and not because she is "brown" but because of the bulging eyes). 6/10 - would bang.
Too bad she is a lesbian, apparently.
 
Bernie is a social democrat, like AOC, not a socialist, but he calls himself a democratic socialist anyway.
Are you sure? About AOC I mean, not Bernie, who is indeed a social democrat. But afaik AOC is a card-carrying member of DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) and they are full-blown Marx-worshiping socialists. So I wish Bernie was more reluctant about calling himself a "socialist".

This bothers me slightly, but in any case Bernie is the closest thing to an actual socialist by a huge margin. Everyone seems to think that the socialist label is enough to sink him, but year after year, it's becoming more and more palatable to voters--especially Democrats, who favor socialism and capitalism about equally. Just one presidential term ago, this would have been unfathomable. Today, Bernie is the most popular politician in the country as an avowed socialist, and AOC is probably not far behind. The party is shifting to the left, whether the establishment likes it or not.
That should be concerning to everybody. What actually existing socialism does to a country can be seen not too far away in Venezuela as we speak. Are these Millennials stupid or what?

He is not a perfect candidate, but he is the only candidate that isn't an empty suit, an authoritarian, a warmonger, a slave to Wall Street, a center-right pragmatist, or a no-name. It sucks that this is true, but that doesn't make it not true.
He will also be 79 at the time of elections. Even if he is all that and a bag of chips, he is way too old now.
 
someone who incarcerated blacks as attorney general
I don't get this objection. Shouldn't a prosecutor prosecute crimes without regard to the race of the suspect? Why should blacks specifically not be incarcerated when they commit crimes that are serious enough for incarceration? That is different than saying that many things that are illegal now should not be illegal (sex work, pot) or that penalties for many non-violent crimes are too harsh. But that is not the objection here.

Bernie Sanders is plenty energetic for his age,
For his age, exactly. :)

and simultaneously you don't see too many people bemoaning Biden's age
You don't think so? Biden is only about a year younger; his age matters just as much.
or Beto's being a white male.
That's all right. β gets imputed progressive-stack righteousness because he has a Spanish nickname. :)

Trump has already shown that you don't need to be well-connected to the political establishment to galvanize a base of radical voters. The days of the savvy technocrat, the statesman, the Obama or the Kerry or Lieberman, are behind us now. Everyone in the race is treating this election like it's another 2008, and all you need to do is get people on board with hope and change as abstract ideals; nobody's falling for that anymore. It didn't prevent Trump and didn't fix our broken system. Unless and until literally one person with Bernie's credibility, incorruptibility, and popularity becomes a serious contender, there is just plainly and simply nobody else.
There is a difference between running for government and running the government. Copernicus was referring to the latter when he talked about needing somebody who is able to fix the damage Trump has done to the American institutions.
 
I said that her youthful good looks are a large part of her appeal (to the masses and certainly to the media.)
I thought we were not supposed to make an issue of female politicians' appearance as per feminist doctrine. Or is that only for negative comments about their appearance?

You're the one who seems to think her eyes look crazy. Sorry they're not blue;
They do. And that has nothing to do with the pigmentation of her iris but thanks for using the same old tired attack. I thought you were better than that.
Here is an example of what I am talking about.
DsIILN0W0AECTbX.jpg

She reminds me of Michelle Bachmann in that regard actually.

BTW, Beto's appeal is largely his looks and his personality.

True. He looks like the second coming of RFK.
 
The Democratic party is intrinsically resistant to what Sanders represents, but they aren't so stupid as to ignore popular support for those ideas (such as Medicare for all, free college tuition, higher minimum wage, the green New Deal, 70% marginal tax rate... most of which enjoy wide support among both Democratic voters and the general population and were outside of the party mainstream until fairly recently).

I've given you reasons why I think the man is unsuitable for the job. You haven't even tried to refute those arguments. Instead, like poster, you try to address the objections by trivializing the motives and character of those with the objections. I support all of the goals you listed, and I don't fault Sanders for espousing those objectives. I fault him for lacking the kind of experience or background that suggests he could advance those goals. He is heavy on slogans and promises, but light on specifics. He doesn't seem to have good rapport with those legislators whose support he would need to get anything done. If you disagree, then say something to dissuade me. I'll be happy to change my opinion, if you can make a case to overcome my skepticism.

That said, I'd vote for him or just about anyone else in a contest with Trump. Good luck with getting popular support for him in the primaries. He certainly won't have mine at that stage of the campaign.
 
Why do you think "Uncle Vlad" would be against a more prominent role and perhaps even presidency for AOC?

He has been investing in Don the Con for almost as long as AOC has been alive. Figure it out - Cheato is "his boy". At least until he has a mountain of dirt on AOC...
 
Last edited:
The Democratic party is intrinsically resistant to what Sanders represents, but they aren't so stupid as to ignore popular support for those ideas (such as Medicare for all, free college tuition, higher minimum wage, the green New Deal, 70% marginal tax rate... most of which enjoy wide support among both Democratic voters and the general population and were outside of the party mainstream until fairly recently).

I've given you reasons why I think the man is unsuitable for the job. You haven't even tried to refute those arguments. Instead, like poster, you try to address the objections by trivializing the motives and character of those with the objections. I support all of the goals you listed, and I don't fault Sanders for espousing those objectives. I fault him for lacking the kind of experience or background that suggests he could advance those goals. He is heavy on slogans and promises, but light on specifics. He doesn't seem to have good rapport with those legislators whose support he would need to get anything done. If you disagree, then say something to dissuade me. I'll be happy to change my opinion, if you can make a case to overcome my skepticism.

That said, I'd vote for him or just about anyone else in a contest with Trump. Good luck with getting popular support for him in the primaries. He certainly won't have mine at that stage of the campaign.

You and other baby boomers like you love to say you support people like Sanders. But then you turn around and say "but Sanders isn't realistic", and vote for people that believe the opposite of Sanders. And tell the Sander's wing: what other option do you have other than voting for <insert corporate democrat>?

And that is where we are now.


But, I posit, the popular sentiment has moved significantly since the 1990s.

Anyway, your "reasons" essentially boil down to "I don't think he would be good at governing, nor would he be appealing to minorities". The latter, I think, is easily dispensed with, in the polls, he is consistently the most popular political figure out there, and he does particularly well among women and people of color.

As to the former, well, something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
The Democratic party is intrinsically resistant to what Sanders represents, but they aren't so stupid as to ignore popular support for those ideas (such as Medicare for all, free college tuition, higher minimum wage, the green New Deal, 70% marginal tax rate... most of which enjoy wide support among both Democratic voters and the general population and were outside of the party mainstream until fairly recently).

I've given you reasons why I think the man is unsuitable for the job. You haven't even tried to refute those arguments. Instead, like poster, you try to address the objections by trivializing the motives and character of those with the objections. I support all of the goals you listed, and I don't fault Sanders for espousing those objectives. I fault him for lacking the kind of experience or background that suggests he could advance those goals. He is heavy on slogans and promises, but light on specifics. He doesn't seem to have good rapport with those legislators whose support he would need to get anything done. If you disagree, then say something to dissuade me. I'll be happy to change my opinion, if you can make a case to overcome my skepticism.

That said, I'd vote for him or just about anyone else in a contest with Trump. Good luck with getting popular support for him in the primaries. He certainly won't have mine at that stage of the campaign.

You and other baby boomers like you love to say you support people like Sanders. But then you turn around and say "but Sanders isn't realistic", and vote for people that believe the opposite of Sanders. And tell the Sander's wing: what other option do you have other than voting for <insert corporate democrat>?

And that is where we are now.


But, I posit, the popular sentiment has moved significantly since the 1990s.

Anyway, your "reasons" essentially boil down to "I don't think he would be good at governing, nor would he be appealing to minorities". The latter, I think, is easily dispensed with, in the polls, he is consistently the most popular political figure out there, and he does particularly well among women and people of color.

As to the former, well, something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Bingo. The race is not between a diverse array of liberal progressives, each with pros and cons, all of which would be fine if we could all just agree to pick one. The race is between a field of candidates who are committed to capitalism and market solutions to every problem from climate change to health insurance to charter schools (and coincidentally all receive large financial donations from these players), and Bernie. Now is the right time to throw our weight behind the person who actually represents something we want for ourselves, even if he ends up butting heads with Congress like Carter did for opposite reasons; Carter didn't get much done legislatively, but he ushered in the modern economic era of neoliberalism that replaced the politics of the New Deal with deregulation, austerity, and the modern police state. Changes don't happen overnight, and aren't restricted to official legislation. This is a unique moment where the options available are so clearly delineated, with so much to gain and nothing to lose by supporting a candidate with actual integrity, flaws and all, over yet another elitist meritocratic ghoul who wants our permission to take a massive dump on Palestine while live-streaming from their kitchen.
 
I thought we were not supposed to make an issue of female politicians' appearance as per feminist doctrine. Or is that only for negative comments about their appearance?

She's telegenic. That certainly contributes the the amount of and quality of coverage she gets.

Yes, I'd much prefer that no one's looks were a factor but when it comes to news media, looks matter. Or at least a woman's looks do. I mean: Trump passes for attractive in some circules.


They do. And that has nothing to do with the pigmentation of her iris but thanks for using the same old tired attack. I thought you were better than that.


And I'm kind of tired of your habitual and casual sexism and racism. I wish you were better than that. You're not dumb but the racism and sexism sure does make you seem much less intelligent than I suspect you actually are.

Here is an example of what I am talking about.
DsIILN0W0AECTbX.jpg

She reminds me of Michelle Bachmann in that regard actually.

Given enough photos, some are going to be unflattering, no matter who the subject. Unfortunately the reverse is not always true. For some, one could fill up a lot of SD cards and still not get an attractive shot.

I don't see any resemblance at all to Bachmann....


BTW, Beto's appeal is largely his looks and his personality.

True. He looks like the second coming of RFK.

He does indeed.

Of course, he has a youthful exuberance and some formerly cool rocker vibe stuff going for him as well. He's likable for sure. He's articulate and down to earth and comes across as your (better than average)average Joe. I see the appeal---without getting into the particulars of his policy stances, etc. Of course, the fact that he is extremely telegenic and was opposing Ted Cruz--and did quite well against him is what propelled him to the national limelight. Too bad he lost. He'd be head and shoulders and knees and toes above Cruz, but then so would what comes out of my dog's butt....
 
I've given you reasons why I think the man is unsuitable for the job. You haven't even tried to refute those arguments.
Awe, nobody's following you down your rabbit holes?

I'll be happy to change my opinion, if you can make a case to overcome my skepticism.
LOL! Skepticism my ass. I suspect you're a player within the Democratic party establishment. All you'd need to do to change your mind is follow the news.

That said, I'd vote for him or just about anyone else in a contest with Trump.
Thanks for proving my earlier point.

Good luck with getting popular support for him in the primaries. He certainly won't have mine at that stage of the campaign.
That's a given. You're so plainly a neoliberal who supports corporatist democrats.
 
You and other baby boomers like you love to say you support people like Sanders. But then you turn around and say "but Sanders isn't realistic", and vote for people that believe the opposite of Sanders. And tell the Sander's wing: what other option do you have other than voting for <insert corporate democrat>?

And that is where we are now.


But, I posit, the popular sentiment has moved significantly since the 1990s.

Anyway, your "reasons" essentially boil down to "I don't think he would be good at governing, nor would he be appealing to minorities". The latter, I think, is easily dispensed with, in the polls, he is consistently the most popular political figure out there, and he does particularly well among women and people of color.

As to the former, well, something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Bingo. The race is not between a diverse array of liberal progressives, each with pros and cons, all of which would be fine if we could all just agree to pick one. The race is between a field of candidates who are committed to capitalism and market solutions to every problem from climate change to health insurance to charter schools (and coincidentally all receive large financial donations from these players), and Bernie. Now is the right time to throw our weight behind the person who actually represents something we want for ourselves, even if he ends up butting heads with Congress like Carter did for opposite reasons; Carter didn't get much done legislatively, but he ushered in the modern economic era of neoliberalism that replaced the politics of the New Deal with deregulation, austerity, and the modern police state. Changes don't happen overnight, and aren't restricted to official legislation. This is a unique moment where the options available are so clearly delineated, with so much to gain and nothing to lose by supporting a candidate with actual integrity, flaws and all, over yet another elitist meritocratic ghoul who wants our permission to take a massive dump on Palestine while live-streaming from their kitchen.

Again, the problem here is that you aren't listening. Bernie isn't listening. You just assume that what you want, everyone else wants. Most democrats want a vibrant economy that provides well paying jobs and benefits. Most want a larger safety net. What makes you think that even a small majority wants true socialism? I would vote for Bernie over Trump. However, I'm not sure that he's running. He's too old!

Secondly, who the heck is a "elitist meritocratic ghoul who wants our permission to take a massive dump on Palestine while live-streaming from their kitchen."??
 
Back
Top Bottom